Party Purification by Fire

Still trying to wrap my mind around all the possibilities here. Really, an enormously important step by Specter.

I've been thinking for some time that the two major parties were moving toward a split into three, but other moderate Republicans may well decide that switching parties is another valid approach toward keeping their views in government as well as (hopefully) admonishing their party.

If other GOP moderates (however few they may now be) follow suit, we'd end up with an extremely marginalized Republican fragment, and an enormous Democratic party that would be palatable to the vast majority of the country.

Fascinating, in part because there'd be no way to point to an election and claim a mandate for one direction or another.

And there's the additional bonus of natural alignment within the "Big Tent" between center-left and center-right, making for a sizeable (and therefore powerful) moderate coalition.

Don't cry for poor Rick. His name will live on forever as an unpleasant consequence of anal sex. Maybe not the legacy he intended, but certainly the one he earned.

See, I don't get how the defection of Specter affirms the theory that social conservatism has hurt the GOP.

Fact is that Specter's decision was based on his disagreement with his former party on economic issues. If we're going to say that the GOP should distance itself from social conservatism, and yet we also feel that it shouldn't stand for fiscal responsibility, then what the hell is the point? Does anyone actually believe that the purpose of a political party is to try to find areas of agreement with the opposite party that holds the majority in both houses and the WH as well? There's no reason for the minority party to take a stance on anything in opposition to the agenda of that controlling party? That's insane, IMO.

I have mixed feelings about this becuase I feel that it is important for the Republican Party to be a viable and alternative choice of the Dems. The current GOP leadership is making decisions to appeal to only a minority of voters. The GOP does need its moderates who are willing to fight for moderation in the place of extremism in the GOP.

When people like Specter leave that struggle becomes harder and the GOP will only become more extreme and intolerant.

However I understand Specter's position and I admire him for wanting to vote for what he thinks is correct. I remember when the stimulus package was being voted on the GOP threatened to cut-off contributing to re-election efforts of its members who voted for the stimulus.

Specter realizes he was put in power by the people and not the GOP. As Specter noted 200,000 Republicans switched parties to the Dems last year so he understands where the GOP is going and where the people he represents are headed. So he is going to vote for his beliefs, and not be forced to choose between his beliefs (including the platform he ran on) and those of the way an out-of-touch GOP party apparatus demands that he votes if he wants their support.

I think Specter made the right decision which allows the people to elect the person who best represents their interest. Otherwise Specter would have needed to exclusively support the GOP platform which does not understand or meet the majority of PA's citizens' needs. And when an elected official doesn't represent his constituents' needs then he will be out of office.

"Does anyone actually believe that the purpose of a political party is to try to find areas of agreement with the opposite party that holds the majority in both houses and the WH as well?"

How funny. I'd have said that you've defined effective governance. Apparently that's unrelated to political parties...

PM, I'm really not following you. Do you not agree that the way our system functions is for the minority party to protect the interests of the country from a potentially hamhanded majority party? If there isn't an organized opposition, then what stops the majority party from overstepping bounds and lurching too far in a particular direction (or worse, the particular direction that supports their partisan interests instead of the country's best interest?)

"Do you not agree that the way our system functions is for the minority party to protect the interests of the country from a potentially hamhanded majority party?"

I think that's too generalized (or absolute?) an interpretation of the system (though lately I do think that's reflective of party politics). If one's role in the minority is merely opposition for its own sake -- because that is, after all, how one sees one's purpose -- than it's practically unnecessary to put actual humans in those roles. Nothing creative about that.

Effective governance, imo, calls for mature thinkers who are unafraid to seek and pursue common purposes. Simply assuming that everyone on "the other side" is wrong, and that only your party is "right" -- or just acting as if you assume this -- is just partisanship.

Well, what's missed in that analysis IMO Polimom is that the majority has to put forth legislation on which there might be some common ground.

During the last administration, that usually wasn't the case (as I heard many times from Democrats who said that when their party voted in lockstep opposition, that was reflective of how the majority was behaving and of course they had to oppose the legislation on principle.)

During this administration, I see the same happening in reverse- although now the GOP gets the blame for being oppositional.

There's nothing creative about being 100% oppositional, certainly. But it becomes the necessary role of a minority party when the majority ceases to look for any areas where there might be agreement.

Isn’t this typical of Jazz Shaw to berate a man that stands on his principles, and praise a populist senator who rides with the political winds of the day? Another joyous occasion for Jazz to bash the right, since Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber haven’t been in the news lately.

P.S. Hey Jazz how’s that fiscal responsibility thing going with your guy Barack?

Frank of PoliticalVindication.com

Fact is that Specter's decision was based on his disagreement with his former party on economic issues.

I think the fact was that Specter bolted because he was going to lose the primary to Toomey, and that is a reflection of how the rigidity of the current GOP is actually hurting it. Specter has a better shot at winning the Dem primary and beating Toomey as a Democrat than winning his own primary.

You can make an argument about the GOP holding true to it's principles and how good a Republican Specter was, but to me I'd rather have something than nothing and the GOP is going to be left with nothing.

The reactionary wing of the republican party isn't exactly welcoming to moderates is it? Why would anyone be surprised by this "defection"? I think it's been a long time coming for Arlen Specter anyway.

Well, what good is the 'something' if there aren't any principles uniting the people of that party affiliation, DaGoat?

And what I'm getting at is the rigidity and purity aren't all in regard to social conservative issues as some here allege- and this is a case that clearly shows that a person felt he no longer agreed with the fiscally conservative stance of the party. I would think that the moderates who want the GOP to stand for that would agree that it's appropriate to have some level of agreement on economic policies in order to retain the support of the party?

Jazz...are you kidding? GWB backed him over Toomey last election. He got all of the GOP financial backing, as well as support from "fire and brimstone" conservatives like Sanorum. Sure, we (Repubs) hate his guts, but who cares? He got the support he needed. Bottom line #1--many voters have legitimate concerns abou the stimulus and its potential negative impact on our economy and society--run-away debt, growing Statism, etc. Because of these concerns are widespread enough, he would have gotten the boot in the primary. Bottom Line #2--This is pure opportunism of a rootless narcissistic prick. Your "moderate voice" sounds more like an echo chamber cortesy of MSM talking points. Readers--nothing new coming out of the Moderate Voice, so feel free to move along....

Oh my, Jazz. They're shooting the messenger, further underscoring your point. Don't the comments of Uncle Seth, diddy and edfgt perfectly express the hatred of today's GOP for the "unpure"?

greendreams, shouldn't you be in iowa with your partner buying vaseline for your pending nuptial?

It doesn't matter if you disagree with Specter or the reason for his leaving the GOP.

The bottom line is that he did not think he could best represent the people of PA when the GOP was demanding him to toe the GOP line, against the wishes of his constituents and his own beliefs.

edfgt:

Whatever (complete with rolling my eyes).

I find this fascinating. A party with very little power puts itself in an even weaker position. A strange time to dismiss practicality.

I would think that the moderates who want the GOP to stand for that would agree that it's appropriate to have some level of agreement on economic policies in order to retain the support of the party?

You could have a point CS, I'll have to think it through. My initial reaction is it's better to have a Specter-R than a Specter-D but a lot will depend how Specter votes from here out.

I don't see the fiscal conservative angle so much. To me Specter is a guy who is marginally more fiscally conservative then the average Democrat, which in the Northeast ain't bad. Maybe it won't turn out to be that big of a deal.

GreenDreams,

With all do respect, you do not know the context of the comment. It was Jazz that went on the attack in a venue where the opposing point of view was not able to defend himself.

Frank of politicalvindication

Well, I'm not familiar enough with his voting record to say for sure either, DaGoat.

But generally I found the kind of faux bipartisanship that took place with the three GOP Senators to be the worst kind of policymaking. Their idea of 'compromise' was to ask for bribes in order to support a bill that they really had no compelling reason to support. That's how we end up with the worst of both party's agendas- the majority puts forth a party line bill, and then the members of the minority party decide if they want to be bought off to support it. I find absolutely nothing to praise in that, and if it's a choice between that and being 'the party of no', I'll take the latter.

The party of "no" continues to shrink. If they don't learn from their mistakes this will only continue. Is the sort of partisan, reactionary madness that afflicts them (and supporters like edfgt) curable? That's the real question.

GreenDreams--you comment is silly and irrelevant. Shooting the messenger? Try "debating the messenger." Read the full content of my comment. a) Fact--Specter was financially and nominally supported by the state and national GOP in 2004; b) Fact--there is nothing new in Jazz's article--you will find this run-of-the-mill assessment in dozens of blogs. I am merely recommending readers who are truly interested in provocative and substantial content to look elsewhere. Isn't it you who are "killing the menssenger?" Where is the ad hominem attack in any of my statement? Stop being a slave to consensus and think outside the box. You lefties are the real squelchers of debate. Admit it.

“My initial reaction is it's better to have a Specter-R than a Specter-D……”

Normally, I would agree with this sentiment, but not now.

It’s important that the purge be complete in sense that those recognizable figures that don’t have the core conservative principles (not talking abortion or gay marriage here, just small government, individual responsibility, etc.) be burned so that the Phoenix can rise from the ashes.

Only a clear, concise, conservative message can revive the Republican Party. By reuniting the conservatives with the republicans, the party could once again win 49 state victories.

Unfortunately, both general characterizations are likely true. Specter is using this as an opportunity to stay in power the same way Lieberman did in CT. At the same time, many Republicans have been abusing Specter as a Republican fraud for years. I was listening to Dennis Miller this morning and this characterization was immediate. The caller, "I've always known Specter was a liberal...."

If there had been not been such Republican disdain for Specter, would it have been enough to overcome his self-serving desires and keep him on board in the minority? Probably Specter doesn't even know.

Well Jazz, I guess you can't please everyone. I guess if you're drawing fire from the left and the right here at TMV, then you must be doing something right. ;-)

It’s important that the purge be complete ~ jwest

How's that purge working out so far? Aren't you afraid that phoenix that rises from the ashes is going to be about the size of a sparrow?

JSpencer--Unlike most self-marinating leftists, I read the opposite viewpoint. After all, you cannot avoid the Dinasaur Networks, Infotainment (The View, etc.), and the left-wing fever swamps of the blogosphere (MoveOn, HuffPo...). I was interested in a voice from the center to complement my perspective and that of the radical left. This definitely was not it.

The purge is going pretty well so far.

Just like a bankruptcy, we are eliminating our liabilities and will emerge lean, strong and focused. You, on the other hand, can load up on spineless walking pustules like Specter and hope they hold their newfound views on critical votes.

One of your own liberal writers started to figure this out:

"So, you've got a blue state represented by a Republican. Said Republican is old, and not as popular as he once was. Additionally, he faces a primary challenge that some polls say he will not survive, which would leave Democrats running against a far-right yahoo. So, what do you do?
The proper response is to find a great Democratic candidate and run him/her against either that far-right yahoo or the old Republican, who has been left bruised and bloody following a drawn-out primary against said yahoo. "

What have the Democrats gained, an iffy vote for the next 18 months? What they should do is tell Specter “thanks, but no thanks”. Let him twist in the wind and run a real democrat in the upcoming election.

we are eliminating our liabilities and will emerge lean, strong and focused. You, on the other hand, can load up on spineless walking pustules like Specter and hope they (blah blah blah) ~ jwest

Actually it appears more that you are preserving your liabilities. As for the second part of your comment, it's very impressive. . . in a sad, 6th gradish sort of way.

diddy_d, if and when you find what you consider to be a "voice from the center", please share the information. I'd be curious to see how you define the "center".

Good to hear, jwest. I rather like the idea of a GOP emerging so lean it can't win anything.

Seriously, though, I think we do need (at least) two viable parties. The GOP seems really fragmented now, and the fuming ire of its right wing base is alienating moderates both within and outside the party.

I think rather than a purge, the party would be far better served by getting representatives of every group that has ever supported it and try to come up with a platform that all of them can get behind.

To the three I mentioned, you're the only ones here who posted attacks on the author rather than just making points germane to the discussion.

CS, the other two GOP senators you think so little of are welcome in our party too. Maybe they'll be the next shoes to drop. ;-)

RINO isn't the word for this hair-plug center-leftist. Specter was kept in office by GWB against conservative opposition in '04, another case of a dog biting the hand that fed him.

Even the resident zampolit at the New Republic, Jonathan Chait, calls this specimen of snatch/grab opportunism an "unprincipled hack." I'm sure the Dems will glance askance when this serial miscreant moves to their side of the aisle and if they have any brains, they'll toss him out in the primary election just as the Republicans would have---the real reason this devout coward bolted.

Hilariously, the creep started out as a Dem, was rejected on smell-test rules, and then somehow wormed his way into the Repub universe. Churchill was right, it talks chutzpah to rat, but considerable duplicity to re-rat.

It seems to be a hallmark of the new republicanism to turn on former members and savage them if they don't march in lockstep, if they criticize their standard bearers, or if they admit the modern conservative philosophy has been in any way a failure. We've seen quite a bit of that this century so far. Specter is just the most recent in a long line. I'm sure there will be more...

“You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,” said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate.

"I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.” “As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.

Yep, and all over Fox and the blogosphere and in the comments here, the shrinking GOP continues to lash out at moderates. I do hope for, and think I can count on it, widespread rage and demonizing of Specter, and yes, please, Snowe and Graham. Tell moderates just exactly what you think of them.

You're going to emerge emaciated, powerless and chaotic. When you're done purging the moderates you'll be sitting on three dozen senators who will be continually ignored.

Aside from some of the usual list of trolls, a couple of interesting questions have come up. One is the issue of whether or not Specter was a "good Republican" or not. It's hard to understand how allegedly serious readers and followers of politics could even type such a thing, but there you go. Was he a good Republican? According to the people who kept electing him, apparently he was good enough. And he voted his own brand of Republican ideology. If the tide turned enough that the polls drove him to the Democrats rather than losing a primary battle against Toomey, that's a choice he'll have to live with for better or worse. Either way, he's likely still pretty much unbeatable in a general election.

The more pressing question raise here, though, was as follows:

My initial reaction is it's better to have a Specter-R than a Specter-D……

There is something to that, for sure. It would be nice to think that each and every politician would vote their heart and their values on every single vote, no matter what letter was after their name, but we all know that the real world beltway doesn't work like that. They will vote the way their specific constituents want, along with their own values they ran on, as much of the time as they think they can get away with it. Times will arise, though, when they will need to support the party for the long term prospects of their career, even if they might not personally agree. Specter has done this in the past as well. Democrats do it too. They all do.

Apparently Specter has gotten to the point where, as he put it, the core of the party has moved too far away from him and the Dems are a better fit. The fact that he probably wouldn't have survived a primary challenge but will likely win the general with either party doubtless played into it. All politicians are pragmatic. The bottom line doesn't change, though. Certain hard core factions of the GOP are looking to purge the RINOs. Good job. You managed another victory today.

Allow me, if you will, to predict the headline at Daily KOS on the day of the first instance where a bill passes the Senate on straight party lines, 60-40.

"WE GOT YER FILLIBUSTER RIGHT HERE, LOSERS. NOW SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE F*&% UP."

And that, in part, is some of the significance of Specter's jumping ship. It's a game of perceptions and the perceptions just shifted again.

Well Jazz, I guess you can't please everyone. I guess if you're drawing fire from the left and the right here at TMV, then you must be doing something right. ;-)

JSpencer, you didn't check your calendar. I'm a left wing moonbat on the even weeks and a right wingnut fascist on the odd weeks. This is week four of the month. Just ask any of my many "fans."

:-P

Jeepers, Jazz. You run with a rough crowd outside the TMV womb, eh?

You don't know the half of it. I just finished interviewing Cloris Leachman and even she called me a four letter word!

This paragraph is from an updated article at WaPo:

He complained about inaction by GOP leaders in Washington when social and fiscal conservatives -- largely funded by the group Club for Growth -- challenged moderate Republicans in primaries. He cited four different races in which the Club for Growth had weighed in and helped a conservative challenger. Each of those seats -- in Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico and Rhode Island -- is now held by a Democrat.

Noses and faces, folks.

Also -- I'd like to point out that there's been some noise from the lefternmost reaches of the Democratic Party to do the same thing to their own moderates. How ironic would it be if they decided to target Specter from the left?

The edges of both parties really do seem to be pretty short-sighted.

Specter lost a Democratic primary for District Attorney in Philadelphia -- so he switched to the GOP ticket to win in the general election. So, it appears that Sen. Specter is finally going home...........where is your previous article lamenting the then loss of a moderate Democrat, Jazz?

This is actually good news for the Republican Party. Now, the Democrats have no point of deflection to distract voters from the fact that it is now the Dems have to lead, govern and accomplish in the next 18 months.

The bad news is for Joe Gandelman and his merry band of writers........"Gosh, Joe, do I really have to write something about the accomplishments and improvements brought about by current administration? I'm not sure I can come up with anything!"

Troll Jazz? Troll?

That hurts, considering that I thought our relationship had much more meaning. After all, you did slander my partner by name on Rick Moran's radio show. I'm really hurt Jazz.

Frank of PoliticalVindication.com

Specter lost a Democratic primary for District Attorney in Philadelphia -- so he switched to the GOP ticket to win in the general election. So, it appears that Sen. Specter is finally going home...........where is your previous article lamenting the then loss of a moderate Democrat, Jazz?

Considering it happened in 1965, to be honest, I wasn't publishing as much during my grade school years as I do now.

This might be good for the Republican Party.

All Specter wants to do is stay in the Senate, but in the Senate he wants to influence legislation in his direction. Specter was a Republican for a reason. He isn't going to support some things Democrats want.

Instead of a 60th vote against filibusters, maybe he'll be the 41st vote in favor of them.

Instead of enabling the Democratic agenda, maybe he'll frustrate it.

So, instead of a bruising primary against a Republican opponent, maybe he'll face a bruising primary against a Democratic opponent?

Which would work to the benefit of the Republican nominee.

Maybe all he's doing is helping Pat Toomey take over his job in the next election after all?

Apparently the gang at TNR don't agree with the laudatory 'principled moderate' meme regarding Specter. They seem reasonably pleased to have the hack on their side, but nonetheless....

No, they don't. For that matter, neither does Glenn Greenwald (who is part of the "let's purge those DINO's" group).

He's catching it from both sides at the moment. Really an astounding political moment.

LOL, talk about situational ethics.

How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.

I take second place to no one on independence voting. But, it is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the expectation. And certainly it has been a very abrupt party change, although they have occurred in the past with only minor ripples, none have caused the major dislocation which this one has.

When I first ran in 1980, Congressman Bud Shuster sponsored a fundraiser for me in Altoona where Congressman Jack Kemp was the principal speaker. When some questions were raised as to my political philosophy, Congressman Shuster said my most important vote would be the organizational vote. From that day to this, I have believed that the organizational vote belonged to the party which supported my election.

When the Democrats urged me to switch parties some time ago, I gave them a flat ``no.'' I have been asked in the last several days if I intended to switch parties. I have said absolutely not.

Senator PHIL GRAMM faced this issue when he decided to switch parties. He resigned his seat, which he had won as a Democrat, and ran for reelection as a Republican. As he told me, his last vote in January 1983 was for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he voted for Tip O'Neill with the view that he was elected as a Democrat and should vote that way on organizational control. Even though, he intended to become a Republican and would have preferred another person to be Speaker.

To repeat, I intend to propose a Senate rule which would preclude a change in control of the Senate when a Senator decides to vote with the opposing party for organizational purposes.

One other aspect does deserve comment, and that is the issue of personal benefit to a changing Senator. In our society, political arrangements avoid the consequences of similar conduct in other contexts.

For example, if company A induces a competitor's employee to break his contract with company B and join company A, company B can collect damages for company A's wrongful conduct. If A gives a benefit to an employee of B to induce the employee to breach a duty, that conduct can have serious consequences in other contexts which are not applied to political arrangements.

On the Lehrer news show on Thursday night, the day before yesterday, Senator HARRY REID and I sparred over this point. I expressed my concern about reliable reports that Democrats had told Senator Jeffords that Senator Reid would step aside so Senator Jeffords could become chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Reid replied that there was no quid pro quo, an expression I had not used.

Accepting Senator Jeffords ' decision was based on principle for the reasons he gave at his news conference on Thursday morning, a question still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether it played any part in Senator JEFFORDS' decision. Questions on such offers and counteroffers should be considered by Senators and by the Senate in an ethical context, but at this moment I do not see any way to effect such conduct by rulemaking or legislation.

This week's events raise very profound questions for the governance of our country as well as the operation of the Senate. I intend to press a rule change which would preclude a recurrence of this situation and will be discussing with my colleagues the whole idea of inducements as an incentive for a party switch.

Midstream party switching for me but not for thee I guess.

"Was he a good Republican? According to the people who kept electing him, apparently he was good enough. And he voted his own brand of Republican ideology."

What's interesting is that McCain was known as a maverick and in order to shore up the conservative base he had to choose someone like Palin, who also claimed she was a maverick from Alaska.

Yet the GOP wants its elected officials to vote party line. They like the idea of mavericks but I guess they only like mavericks if those mavericks will do what the party wants them to do.

It's seems that the moderates are their own brand of mavericks, just more moderate :) and the GOP does not welcome them....

CS

This dovetails nicely with yesterday's discussion of what moderates must do to be part of the Republican party. I guess the absolutism of the Club for Growth sure showed that RINO the door; same for moderate Republicans in Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico and Rhode Island. Maybe absolutism is not the answer for political growth, but by all means, let the GOP demonstrate I'm wrong.

Only a clear, concise, conservative message can revive the Republican Party. By reuniting the conservatives with the republicans, the party could once again win 49 state victories.

After the Democrats bring the U6 unemployment numbers down to 6% and real wages start going up 3 to 4 % a year for ten, fifteen years, maybe, just maybe people will forget what a cluster-f**k the Bush administration was and start voting for Conservative Republicans.

The irony lost on all the Republicans rushing to throw Specter under the bus is the simple fact that as a sixtieth Democrat, he now has a greater ability to gain concessions and effect the outcome of the nation's future more than he would ever have had as a lock step ideologue. He's being chastised for gaining the real power to sway votes that the party of NO merely covets.

The "specter" of party purity surely burns brightly when fed with the absolute certainty of unquestioning partisanship.

Just like a bankruptcy, we are eliminating our liabilities and will emerge lean, strong and focused. You, on the other hand, can load up on spineless walking pustules like Specter and hope they hold their newfound views on critical votes.

Isn't it a pustule on Limpbaughs backside that keep his patriotic self from Vietnam? Thew wingnuts chirp...